On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > On Thursday 10 July 2008 10:44, Florent Daigni?re wrote: >> * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-07-07 12:17:33]: >> >> > 3. Eliminate all checkboxes in the installer, move to the wizard, and >> > create an advanced options button in the installer. (Toad) >> > >> > This would streamline installation significantly: Paranoid users could >> > click a box to turn UPnP etc on/off, everyone else doesn't need to worry >> > about it. >> > >> >> Heh, what's the story about the installer and the checkboxes? >> Good to know that you have debated that... and reached some kind of >> agreement; I wasn't even aware that those checkboxes were a problem! > > We did debate it (briefly) at the summit. Ian (was it Ian?) was of the view > that there are still too many steps involved in the installation process and > this is confusing new users. >> >> That said I'm more than happy to hand over the maintainance of the >> installer :p > > I'll bug you if I don't understand something. Which is most of the installer > still. :) >> >> > 5. THROTTLE EVERYTHING !! (Toad) >> > >> > Not all traffic is throttled at the moment. We should subject all >> > traffic, not only data transfer packets, to both congestion control and >> > bandwidth limiting. This is related to the low-level streams proposal, >> > but can be done without it, and should be easier. This is especially >> > problematic for online gaming. See bug 2312. Note that a lot of Freenet >> > runs on altruism, thus it is *essential* that it not severely disrupt >> > a user's internet connection! >> >> I think that this one is important. > > Agreed. >> >> > 7. Automatic bandwidth limit calibration. (Toad) >> > >> > Several other p2p apps implement this, we should too. Bandwidth is *the* >> > scarce resource most of the time, we want to use as much of it as we can >> > without significantly slowing down the user's internet connection (see >> > above). >> >> I don't think that such a thing can reliably work. It might work in 80% >> of the cases but will badly screw up in others. > > It works for other p2p's. What specifically is the problem for Freenet? Small > number of connections?
Freenet is a bit more CPU intensive. When I increase the bandwidth limit here, it cause high backoff and result in much poor performance. (ya, I know I should upgrade the computer..) Never mention it does _not_ work that well for other p2p. --
